| dc.contributor.author | Oroko, PK | |
| dc.contributor.author | Buchan, M | |
| dc.contributor.author | Winkler, A | |
| dc.contributor.author | Kelly, IG | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2013-06-11T14:44:42Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2013-06-11T14:44:42Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 1999 | |
| dc.identifier.citation | Bull Hosp Jt Dis. 1999;58(1):6-8 | en |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10431627 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://erepository.uonbi.ac.ke:8080/xmlui/handle/123456789/31775 | |
| dc.description.abstract | Healing of clavicular fractures with shortening of 15 mm or more has been associated with poor function and open reduction and internal fixation has been recommended as the appropriate initial treatment. We studied 41 patients at least three months after clavicular fracture. Clavicular shortening was calculated and shoulder function was assessed using the Constant Scoring method. Although three patients with shortening of 1.5 cm or more had low scores, this could be attributed to other factors. We could not demonstrate any relationship between clavicular shortening and shoulder function. | en |
| dc.language.iso | en | en |
| dc.title | Does shortening matter after clavicular fractures? | en |
| dc.type | Article | en |
| local.publisher | College of Health Sciences, University of Nairobi | en |
